The 50mph speed limit is under ideal conditions. Drivers are expected to slow down under less than ideal conditions. Each states drivers handbook usually specifies speed limit reductions for various road conditions, rain, snow, fog etc. You can be ticketed for not taking these reductions into account. Ie if she was driving 55mph in a marked 50mph zone with wet conditions and limited visibility she wasn’t just going 5mph over the legal speed limit. She might have been going 30mph over the legal speed limit.
Imo if she was suing the family without any provocation I’d find her to be an awful human being. As it appears the family had already filed suit against her I see it as a valid strategy in defending herself.
It appears on its face to be a horribly unfortunate situation. I don’t think either party should be suing the other. The police did not find negligence and I’d defer to their investigation over that of either party.
This is pretty much local to me, I live roughly about ten miles from where it happened. So I thought I would reflect on a couple of things.
This would just be one of those tragedies you hear about every so often. As a driver , I pay insurance so that if this were to happen to me, the insurance company would pay out to the family. So far, one news paper(national) is saying that the lady is suing the estate of the boy, and the other paper( TOR Sun) is saying that the family is suing her for Funeral costs and such.
So did the insurance company pay out ? and to who.
When the accident happened, the lady followed by her husband in the second vehicle and another lady in a third vehicle. The lady in the third vehicle was the one to render aid to the victims, while the husband (york regional officer) approached third lady and victims, long enough to assertain loacation so he could phone 911.
All at the scene were held until 5:30 am, with the exception of the driver and her husband.
S.Simcoe officers collected enough evidence to push it up to a crown, who in his or her opinion felt it did not have enough to get a conviction.
There were questions so far if a road side breathalyser was administered. As well, so far I have not heard if her, or her husbands cellphone records were supoenaed. Again with her car, what its dispostion is. Nothing so far, beyond her word about the speed the vehicle was going at. That means the black box has not verified within a few kph plus or minus, if it does collect the last 30 seconds, should reflect what her actual speed was.
So I think this story is going to get more murky as time goes by, unless queens park gets involved with regards to a police enquiry.
So, from what I understand reading the links; A person struck and killed a bicyclist. The family of the bicyclists’ claim the person might have been drunk, texting, speeding, or was otherwise incapacitated. They did that with very little proof, even though the driver was given road-side tests.
The family sues the motorist for causing his death, even though he, along with his friends, Might have been at least partially at fault.
To defend herself, her only options are to admit to wrong-doings that aren’t completely true, or counter-sue the family.
So, what’s the problem?
“It’s a countersuit” isn’t exactly a magic defense for this action. At the end of a day she is suing the family who’s child is dead.
If the family sues over the death of their child I can understand that. If they make a lot of accusations in the process I generally assume things will come out in the wash. This? No matter how you spin it the result lands on ‘killer of child is self-centered and selfish’.
This isn’t a ‘the eternally misunderstood McDonalds hot coffee case’ this is someone suing the family of someone she killed. This will never play well to anyone.
Add to that the fact that the husband is also putting in a lawsuit against the dead boy’s family, well if this is playing hardball it seems hardball can bounce back in your face real hard.
…this is incorrect in a couple of ways. Firstly the woman who sued in the McDonalds coffee case was correct and deserved every cent she got. Secondly: this is actually “playing well” to the the people who have listened to both sides of the story.
I’ve seen both sides and I find the excuse of ‘this is just a countersuit action’ does not play well at all. I find it repulsive. In my viewing this lawsuit favorably just because you put a ‘countersuit’ bow on it is craven bootlicking to legal suit antics.
ETA: and you missed my point about the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit. At this point it being used as an example of lawsuit abuse is shot down with the facts of the case. This one? That won’t fly.
What was up with the husband of the driver working as a cop (apparently) in the same jurisdiction in which the accident occurred and who arranged for her to leave the scene before other witnesses were questioned. It surely does seem to me there was something wrong with that.
I think this is where the disconnect between you and others listening to both sides of the story lies:
I’m assuming there is already enough money between their life insurance policy and the drivers insurance policy to cover funeral expenses. If either insurance company is denying coverage I have not heard of it yet. I view it as the family is seeking to profit from the loss of their child at the expense of this driver.
The parents were negligent in allowing their child to be riding in the middle of a highway at a time that most children should be in bed, now they are seeking to take any wealth this woman has acquired for their own benefit. The child is dead, it’s not like the money they are suing to get is going to the child, they want to profit on their child’s death.
Her suing in response is one of the few resources she has available to re-coop what the family is trying to take from her. If she has no counter suit she may be left with no means to negotiate a settlement.
I think it is inherently wrong for either side to be seeking to profit from this tragedy.
So, suing for funeral costs equals greedy money grab while countersuing for a million dollars equals a reasonable response and not greedy at all. Makes perfect sense to me. Doesn’t seem that going for a million dollars might be I dunno, a tad greedy considering she might be out funeral costs.
I have yet to hear of any insurance company paying out any benefits either, especially in view of the police report trying to put all the blame on the kid.
I also don’t know of many seventeen year olds with life insurance policies. Maybe things are different in Canada.
Oh yes. I am just certain that when the mother heard her child had been killed you could see the dollar signs in her eyes.
Or maybe they’d just like some better answers than they got, or maybe they feel justice was not served. Just because you are a cruel mercenary who thinks of his kids as nothing more than potential moneybags for when they die doesn’t mean everyone does.
Horseshit. If there is no merit to the parents claims then the case will fall by the wayside. She hasn’t lost anything yet and her lawsuit just looks like cruelty by lawsuit at its worst.
If she were countersuing with claims that the accusations in the first lawsuit were malicious and damaging she would get more support.
There’s probably a horde of ways to do that if she actually bears no responsibility for the kid’s death.
But you are more than happy to put equal or greater blame on the person who actually lost a child.
I don’t think I am the one with the disconnect. I also do not think you speak for everyone who has ‘heard both sides of the story’. I’d like to think the world is a wee bit less cruel and mercenary than you are.
Maybe there’s a case to be made for her suing the estate of the boy who died, but what earthly reason would she have for suing his dead brother? Six months after Brandon was struck and killed, Devon Majewski died of an overdose that his parents believe was accidental and not suicide. He has been named in Simon’s suit.
…you said it would never play well to anyone. It obviously isn’t playing well too you. But it is playing well to others, whatever “playing well” actually means. You find it repulsive? You are entitled to think whatever you like. I find the claims of texting/under the influence/cover up to be repulsive because they aren’t based on any actual evidence.
oh yes, you must be right: I can see now how the news media and the SDMB pit are filled with “family of teen who got killed gets rightly sued by woman who killed him”.
That you know of. You got the inside line on this case or something?
She was not checked at the scene for alcohol. Her phone was not checked for use right before the crash. She was allowed to leave the scene.
The bikes were equipped with reflectors which do give sufficient warning assuming the driver isn’t an inattentive, brain-dead fool.
So she was
A) Driving too fast on a wet road.
B) Driving too fast on a tight winding road, unable to stop within the bounds of her forward visibility.
Sub B) The road was straight/near straight thus giving a view ahead thus the bikes would be visible well ahead of potential conflict.
C) She was driving too fast to stop within the reach of her headlights.
In two of the articles, she was quoted as saying: “They did not apply their brakes properly,” the claim states. “They were incompetent bicyclists.”
a) What good would it have done if the kids were braking?
b0 If she didn’t see them before the crash, how does she know what they were doing?
…I am right. It isn’t playing well to you. But it is “playing well” to others. The OP was based on a story which pretty much omitted major parts of the story.
I’m sure there is some secret evidence out there. All the best conspiracy theories are based on stuff that no one talks about. When this secret evidence comes out please be free to share it with the rest of us: and don’t forget to let the South Simcoe Police know as well.
…the police reconstructed the accident in similar conditions with the same clothes and vehicle, then compiled a 26 page report. Did any of this information you cited come from that report?
The statements that "she wasn’t checked for alcohol, cell phone not checked and allowed to leave the scene were based on the statements of a witness: and really don’t mean a lot. The absence of evidence is not evidence.